Legislative Council Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide 30-YEAR PLAN FOR GREATER ADELAIDE The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY Legislative Council Leader of the Opposition 30-YEAR PLAN FOR GREATER ADELAIDE The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (14:44): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Urban Development and Planning a question about the 30-year plan. Leave granted The Hon. B.V. Finnigan interjecting: The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Finnigan will come to order. The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY Legislative Council The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: We all know that the fish John West rejects makes his fish the best. I have searched the background technical documents and the document known as the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide to look for other options that may have been canvassed by the government. There appear to be none. What other options for growth in Adelaide have been considered by this government? The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY Legislative Council Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (14:45): Heavens above! I have just gone through that. Obviously, the Leader of the Opposition was not listening to the answer. The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: He might have been interjecting too much. The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY Legislative Council The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I went through all the possible options. If members of the opposition do not want 70 per cent infill, and would rather have it as greenfield, let them say where they want that greenfield development. That is the first option: do you do it as infill or as greenfield? This government is going for as high a level of infill as we reasonably can, consistent with protecting the character of this city, and we believe, with all the work that has been done with the 30-year plan, that we can do so without impacting on about 80 per cent of our suburbs. That is the first option. When it comes to the greenfield areas, what do you do with what is left over that cannot be incorporated within the boundary? As I said, some broad studies were undertaken in relation to that, and I refer to the Growth Investigation Areas. The Hon. M. Parnell Legislative Council The Hon. M. Parnell: Release it! The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY Legislative Council The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Of course we will not release it; it is not what we are putting out. The Growth Investigation Areas was about all the possibilities; why would we now go out and consult with the public and give it misleading information? We know that the Hon. Mr Parnell wants to because he is opposed to it. He wants the public to be confused, and he wants information out there that would be misleading, because he could then raise all these issues and say, 'Look, there are these areas in the Growth Investigation Areas that could potentially be used, but they are not in there. Why not?' He would create this massive diversion about an issue that has nothing at all to do with the objectives of the plan. That is what he is on about, and we know that; you can read him like a book. I am not about misleading the people of this state. As I said, there are areas such as the McLaren Vale wine region, the Barossa Valley, the hills face zone, and the area north of the new Northern Expressway around Virginia that this government is determined to preserve. Obviously there are options, but we have actually ruled them out. It is similar to the environmental lands that have been identified. There are plenty of areas where there could be urban sprawl, but this government wants, first, to contain it by getting growth within the boundaries; and, secondly, where we do have to have a development, we want it to be in areas that have minimum impact on the environment, that give best use of infrastructure, and that have minimal impact on environmental lands and the hills face zone, as well as agricultural land. That is what we have done: we have looked at all the alternatives—and when you look at a map of Adelaide you can see there are not that many, unless of course you want to build on the hills face. If the opposition wants to do that, that is one thing, but does it want to build on our key environmental and agricultural areas? If the opposition wants to do that then they are the alternatives, but this government has ruled them out. Why would you put out reports that have options to develop certain areas which are not part of government policy? This government has made it clear right from the start that we understand that houses could be built there, but it does not want to do that. It is not our policy to impact on the McLaren Vale wine-growing districts, the Barossa or the Virginia area.